GnRH agonist plus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in ICSI cycles: a randomized study

Comparison of luteal support protocols in fresh IVF/ICSI cycles: a network meta-analysis

Despite the proven superiority of various luteal phase support protocols (LPS) over placebo in view of improved pregnancy rates in fresh cycles of IVF (in vitro fertilization) and ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) cycles, there is ongoing controversy over specific LPS protocol selection, dosage, and duration. The aim of the present study was to identify the optimal LPS under six core aspects of ART success, clinical pregnancy, live birth as primary outcomes and biochemical pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) events as secondary outcomes. Twelve databases, namely Embase (OVID), MEDLINE (R) (OVID), GlobalHealth (Archive), GlobalHealth, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Maternity & Infant Care Database (MIDIRS), APA PsycTests, ClinicalTrials.gov, HMIC Health Management Information Consortium, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus and two prospective registers, MedRxiv, Research Square were searched from inception to Aug.1st, 2023, (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022358986). Only Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) model was employed for outcome analysis, presenting fixed effects, odds ratios (ORs) with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Vaginal Progesterone (VP) was considered the reference LPS given its' clinical relevance. Seventy-six RCTs, comparing 22 interventions, and including 26,536 participants were included in the present NMA. Overall CiNeMa risk of bias was deemed moderate, and network inconsistency per outcome was deemed low (Multiple pregnancy χ2: 0.11, OHSS χ2: 0.26), moderate (Clinical Pregnancy: χ2: 7.02, Live birth χ2: 10.95, Biochemical pregnancy: χ2: 6.60, Miscarriage: χ2: 11.305). Combinatorial regimens, with subcutaneous GnRH-a (SCGnRH-a) on a vaginal progesterone base and oral oestrogen (OE) appeared to overall improve clinical pregnancy events; VP + OE + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.57 (95% CrI 1.11 to 2.22)], VP + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.28 (95% CrI 1.05 to 1.55)] as well as live pregnancy events, VP + OE + SCGnRH-a [OR 8.81 (95% CrI 2.35 to 39.1)], VP + SCGnRH-a [OR 1.76 (95% CrI 1.45 to 2.15)]. Equally, the progesterone free LPS, intramuscular human chorionic gonadotrophin, [OR 9.67 (95% CrI 2.34, 73.2)] was also found to increase live birth events, however was also associated with an increased probability of ovarian hyperstimulation, [OR 1.64 (95% CrI 0.75, 3.71)]. The combination of intramuscular and vaginal progesterone was associated with higher multiple pregnancy events, [OR 7.09 (95% CrI 2.49, 31.)]. Of all LPS protocols, VP + SC GnRH-a was found to significantly reduce miscarriage events, OR 0.54 (95% CrI 0.37 to 0.80). Subgroup analysis according to ovarian stimulation (OS) protocol revealed that the optimal LPS across both long and short OS, taking into account increase in live birth and reduction in miscarriage as well as OHSS events, was VP + SCGnRH-a, with an OR 2.89 [95% CrI 1.08, 2.96] and OR 2.84 [95% CrI 1.35, 6.26] respectively. Overall, NMA data suggest that combinatorial treatments, with the addition of SCGnRH-a on a VP base result in improved clinical pregnancy and live birth events in both GnRH-agonist and antagonist ovarian stimulation protocols.

[No improvement in live birth rate after luteal phase support by GnRH agonist]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of adding a GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) in luteal phase support (LPS) on live birth rates in IVF/ICSI in antagonist protocols.

METHODS

In total, 341 IVF/ICSI attempts are analyzed in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups: A f: LPS with progesterone alone (179 attempts) between March 2019 and May 2020; B: LPS with progesterone and an injection of triptorelin (GnRH-a) 0.1mg 6 days after oocyte retrieval (162 attempts) between June 2020 and June 2021. The primary outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes were miscarriage rate, pregnancy rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristic are identical between the two groups except the infertility duration (longer in the group B). There was no significant difference between the two groups in live birth rate (24.1% versus 21.2%), pregnancy rate (33.3% versus 28.1%), miscarriage rate (4.9% versus 3.4%) and no increase the SHSO rate. The multivariate regression analysis after adjustment for age, ovarian reserve and infertility duration did not reveal a significant difference in live birth rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the results showed no statistically significant association with the single injection of a GnRH-a in addition to progesterone on live birth rate in luteal phase support.

Luteal phase support for women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or sexual intercourse

BACKGROUND

Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment  We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen  We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment  No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone  The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment  The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).

Single Dose Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Luteal Support in Fresh Embryo Transfer: Variation in Timing, Type, and Dosage

Objectives

To evaluate the effects of the addition of single-dose GnRH agonist to the routine progestogens use for luteal phase support on IVF outcome as compared to progestogens only.

Methods

This is a retrospective case-control study on selected patients who underwent IVF treatment with fresh embryo transfer (ET) under Medically Assisted Conception Unit, University Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center for the period of June 2015–June 2018. A higher dose of 0.2 mg subcutaneous Decapeptyl was administered 2 days before fresh ET concurrent with routine progestogen support. Patients with different luteal phase regimes, frozen embryo transfer and medical records with missing data were excluded. Their medical records were reviewed, and data analyzed. The pregnancy outcomes measured included biochemical pregnancy rates, clinical pregnancy rates, live birth rates and miscarriage rates.

Results

A total of 786 patients were analyzed. Four hundred forty-four patients were given luteal phase support with progestogens and GnRH agonist, whereas 342 patients served as control were given progestogens only. The study group showed higher biochemical pregnancy rate (47.7 vs. 44.4%,), clinical pregnancy rate (25.7 vs. 23.4%) and livebirth rate (24.3 vs. 22.2%), respectively but not statistically significant. The rate of miscarriage among the study group was lower (4.5% vs 9.4%) compared to the progestogen group alone. Nonetheless, the OHSS rate was slightly increased in the study group (4.5 vs. 3.5%) despite using a mild stimulation protocol.

Conclusions

New regime of GnRH agonist luteal support in addition to the standard progestogen support was found to be beneficial in overall IVF outcome.

Co-administration of GnRH agonists with vaginal progesterone compared to vaginal progesterone in luteal phase support of the frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycle: An RCT

BACKGROUND

Since progesterone alone does not seem to be enough for luteal phase support (LPS), especially in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles, so gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) is suggested as an adjuvant therapy in combination with progesterone for LPS.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of the administration of GnRH-a with vaginal progesterone compared to vaginal progesterone alone in luteal phase support of the frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 240 infertile women who were candidates for FET were evaluated into two groups (n = 120/each). Group I received 400 mg vaginal progesterone twice a day from the time of transfer. The second group received vaginal progesterone and also 0.1 mg diphereline on days 0, 3, and 6 of FET for LPS. Finally, the clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates, and the implantation, and spontaneous abortion rates were compared in two groups.

RESULTS

Results showed that there was no significant difference between the mean age of women and the duration of infertility (p = 0.78, p = 0.58, respectively). There were no significant differences between groups in the terms of implantation and spontaneous abortion rates (p = 0.19, p = 0.31, respectively). However, in terms of clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates, the significant differences were seen between groups (p = 0.008 and p = 0.005, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Co-administration of GnRH-a and vaginal progesterone in LPS may be superior to vaginal progesterone alone in women who underwent a frozen-selected embryo transfer cycle.

Effects of multiple doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist on the luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive cycles: A clinical trial study

Background

The effect of adding gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist on the luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technique (ART) cycles is controversial.

Objective

To determine the effects of adding multiple doses of GnRH agonist to the routine luteal phase support on ART cycle outcomes.

Materials and Methods

This clinical trial study included 200 participants who underwent the antagonist protocol at the Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd, Iran, between January and March 2020. Of the 200, 168 cases who met the inclusion criteria were equally divided into two groups - the case and the control groups. Both groups received progesterone in the luteal phase, following which the case group received GnRH agonist subcutaneously (0/1 mg triptorelin) zero, three, and six days after the fresh embryo transfer, while the control group did not receive anything. Finally, chemical and clinical pregnancy rates, number of mature oocytes, fertilization rate, total dose of gonadotropin, and the estradiol level were determined.

Results

The baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. No significant difference was observed between embryo transfer cycles. Clinical results showed that differences between the fertilization rate, chemical and clinical pregnancies were not significant.

Conclusion

The results showed that receiving multiple doses of GnRH agonist in the luteal phase of ART cycles neither improves embryo implantation nor the pregnancy rates; therefore, further studies are required.

Effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) as luteal phase support in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a randomized controlled trial

Background

This paper describes a blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) administration on outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in subjects stimulated with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. A total of 268 women who underwent ICSI cycles with GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation protocol were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (GnRH-a) and control groups. The intervention group received a single dose injection of triptorelin (0.1 mg) subcutaneously 6 days after oocyte retrieval while the control group received placebo. The rates of chemical and clinical pregnancy were defined as the primary outcome values.

Results

Two hundred forty participants accomplished the study, and their data were analyzed. No significant difference was detected between the chemical pregnancy rates of the intervention and control groups. However, the clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the GnRH-a group than in the placebo group.

Conclusions

The findings of the present study suggest that the GnRH-a support in the luteal phase can result in a significant improvement of pregnancy rates in ICSI cycles following the ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist protocol.

Administration effects of single-dose GnRH agonist for luteal support in females undertaking IVF/ICSI cycles: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of the addition of single-dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) for luteal support on pregnancy outcomes in females partaking in in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. In total, the studies were hand-searched from six electronic databases to compare the pregnancy outcomes between single-dose GnRHa administered as luteal phase support (GnRHa group) and regular luteal support (control group). In the GnRHa group, single-dose GnRH agonist were administered at 5/6 days after IVF/ICSI procedures. In the control group, single-dose GnRH agonist was not added during luteal phase support. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Sensitivity analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software; the high heterogeneity identified in the present analysis was primarily caused by one study included. Following exclusion of this particular study, the meta-analysis results indicated significantly higher rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth per transfer (P=0.002), clinical pregnancy per transfer (CPR; P=0.001) and multiple pregnancy per pregnancy (P=0.020) in the GnRHa group compared with those in the control group. Meta-analysis of a subgroup of trials with long-acting GnRH-a ovarian treatment protocols indicated that the rate of ongoing pregnancy or live birth (P=0.080), CPR (P=0.090) and multiple pregnancy per pregnancy (P=0.140) were not significantly different between the two groups. However, the results from trials that had used a multi-dose GnRH antagonist ovarian treatment protocol indicated a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy or live birth rate per transfer (P=0.010), CPR per transfer (P<0.0001) and multiple pregnancy rate per pregnancy (P=0.003) compared with those in the control group. The present results suggested that administration of single-dose GnRH agonist in the luteal phase may be an ideal choice for patients undergoing IVF/ICSI therapy.

GnRH agonists to sustain the luteal phase in antagonist IVF cycles: a randomized prospective trial

BACKGROUND

The addition of a GnRH analogue to the luteal phase in in vitro fertilization programs has been seldom proposed due to the presence of GnRH receptors in the endometrium. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of triptorelin addition in short antagonist cycles, compared to cycles where the only supplementation was progesterone.

METHODS

The primary objective of this study was the study of the effect of Triptorelin addiction during the luteal phase on the live birth rate. Secondary objectives of efficacy were pregnancy rates and implantation rates, as well as safety in terms of OHSS risks. The study was a prospective, randomized, open study, performed in two independent Centers from July 2013 to October 2015. Patients were divided into three groups: a) Regular antagonist protocol, with only luteal progesterone; b) Antagonist protocol with luteal triptorelin as multiple injections, c) Antagonist protocol with luteal triptorelin as single bolus. Descriptive statistics were obtained for all the parameters. Mean and standard deviation were used for all quantitative parameters. Differences between percentages were studied using Chi-square test generalized to the comparison of several proportions.

RESULTS

A total number of 1344 patients completed the study, 786 under the age of 35 years, and 558 over 35 years. It was observed an increase of positive HCG results, Clinical pregnancy rates and Delivery rates when triptorelin was added in the luteal phase, irrespective whether as a single bolus or five injections. This increase was statistically significant both for pregnancy rates and delivery rates. The statistic difference between pregnancies and deliveries obtained with or without luteal triptorelin reached p < 0,01. No increase of OHSS risk was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

From this large study it appears that the concept of luteal phase supplementation should be revisited. From our study it appears that triptorelin addition to the luteal phase of antagonist cycles, either as a single bolus or using multiple injections, is a good tool to optimize ART results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Provincia di Bergamo (n 1203/2013).

Clinical pregnancy following GnRH agonist administration in the luteal phase of fresh or frozen assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective(s)

To study if the GnRH agonist administration in luteal phase improves clinical pregnancy rate of fresh and frozen embryo transfer. Also, this meta-analysis compares the treatment effect of luteal GnRH agonist administration between long agonist and antagonist protocols of fresh cycles, and between two types of treatment: fresh and frozen embryo transfers.

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis (registration number CRD42017059152)

Results

For the overall 20 studies (5497 patients), clinical pregnancy rate significantly increased in group of GnRH agonist administration compared to control group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14–1.34, p < 0.0001). Regarding the treatment effect of luteal GnRH agonist administration between long agonist and antagonist protocol fresh cycles, no significant difference was observed (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.98–1.67, p = 0.07). Also, in comparison between fresh and frozen embryo transfer, similar effect of GnRH agonist administration was found (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.74–1.16, p = 0.49).

Conclusion(s)

There is evidence that GnRH agonist administration in luteal phase improve clinical pregnancy rate in both fresh and frozen cycles. Within fresh cycles, no significant difference of clinical pregnancy rate is found between two protocols. In frozen cycles, the effect of GnRH agonist administration in enhancing clinical pregnancy rate is similar to fresh cycles.

Administration of a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a meta-analysis

At present, the precise role of GnRH agonists during the luteal phase remains uncertain. In the present study, a meta-analysis was used to evaluate the effect of administering a GnRH agonist to during the luteal phase in patients undergoing FET cycles. A literature review was carried out by searching the current content of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Ovid. We particularly focused upon implantation rate, CPR per transfer, and ongoing pregnancy rate. All of the trials analyzed involved a GnRH agonist administered during the luteal phase. Six trials involving 1137 women were included in our meta-analysis. All of the cycles analyzed exhibited significantly higher implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates, and ongoing pregnancy rates in the group of patients administered with a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase compared with the control group that did not receive a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase. Our data, therefore, demonstrate that the administration of a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase can significantly increase clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates in FET cycles. The implantation rates, clinical pregnancy rates, and ongoing pregnancy rates can significantly increase in the group of patients administered with a GnRH agonist in natural cycle FET.

Impact of Mid-Luteal Phase GnRH Agonist Administration on Reproductive Outcomes in GnRH Agonist-Triggered Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the addition of a mid-luteal bolus of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) improves the implantation rate (IR) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private IVF center.

PATIENTS

328 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients were triggered with GnRHa and received 1,500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) in addition to a standard luteal phase support (LPS).

INTERVENTIONS

In addition, the study group received a bolus of GnRHa 6 days after OPU, whereas the control group did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Implantation rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates.

RESULTS

Although serum concentrations of FSH, LH, E2, and P on day OPU + 7 were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, the IR was not statistically different between the treatment group (27%) and the control group (23%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), P < 0.27]. Similarly, the OP rate was 37% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.23]. The LB rate was 36% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR: 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.27].

CONCLUSION

Although a trend toward a higher IR and pregnancy rate was observed in the treatment group, this difference was not statistically significant. However, the absolute risk difference of 5% found for LB is clinically relevant, warranting further investigation.

NCT

02053779.

Impact of Mid-Luteal Phase GnRH Agonist Administration on Reproductive Outcomes in GnRH Agonist-Triggered Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the addition of a mid-luteal bolus of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) improves the implantation rate (IR) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private IVF center.

PATIENTS

328 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients were triggered with GnRHa and received 1,500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) in addition to a standard luteal phase support (LPS).

INTERVENTIONS

In addition, the study group received a bolus of GnRHa 6 days after OPU, whereas the control group did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Implantation rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates.

RESULTS

Although serum concentrations of FSH, LH, E2, and P on day OPU + 7 were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, the IR was not statistically different between the treatment group (27%) and the control group (23%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), P < 0.27]. Similarly, the OP rate was 37% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.23]. The LB rate was 36% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR: 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.27].

CONCLUSION

Although a trend toward a higher IR and pregnancy rate was observed in the treatment group, this difference was not statistically significant. However, the absolute risk difference of 5% found for LB is clinically relevant, warranting further investigation.

NCT

02053779.

GnRH agonist during luteal phase in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To identify, evaluate and summarize the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of administering a gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist during the luteal phase in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the addition of a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase, compared with standard luteal-phase support. We searched seven electronic databases and hand-searched the reference lists of included studies and related reviews. Our primary outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy per randomized woman. Our secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy per randomized woman, miscarriage per clinical pregnancy, adverse perinatal outcome and congenital malformations.

RESULTS

The evidence from eight studies examining 2776 women showed a relative risk (RR) for live birth or ongoing pregnancy of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.53; I(2) = 58%). Sensitivity analysis when excluding the studies that did not report live birth and those at high risk of bias resulted in one study examining 181 women with an RR of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.73-1.58). Subgroup analysis separating the studies by single/multiple doses of GnRH agonists or by ovarian stimulation with GnRH agonist/antagonist was unable to explain the observed heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was deemed to be very low: it was downgraded because of the limitation of the included studies, imprecision, inconsistency across the studies' results, and suspicion of publication bias. None of the included studies reported adverse perinatal outcomes or congenital malformations.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that adding GnRH agonist during the luteal phase improves the likelihood of ongoing pregnancy. However, this evidence is of very low quality and there is no evidence for adverse perinatal outcome and congenital malformations. We therefore believe that including this intervention in clinical practice would be premature.

GnRH and GnRH receptors in the pathophysiology of the human female reproductive system

BACKGROUND

Human reproduction depends on an intact hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis. Hypothalamic gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) has been recognized, since its identification in 1971, as the central regulator of the production and release of the pituitary gonadotrophins that, in turn, regulate the gonadal functions and the production of sex steroids. The characteristic peculiar development, distribution and episodic activity of GnRH-producing neurons have solicited an interdisciplinary interest on the etiopathogenesis of several reproductive diseases. The more recent identification of a GnRH/GnRH receptor (GnRHR) system in both the human endometrium and ovary has widened the spectrum of action of the peptide and of its analogues beyond its hypothalamic function.

METHODS

An analysis of research and review articles published in international journals until June 2015 has been carried out to comprehensively summarize both the well established and the most recent knowledge on the physiopathology of the GnRH system in the central and peripheral control of female reproductive functions and diseases.

RESULTS

This review focuses on the role of GnRH neurons in the control of the reproductive axis. New knowledge is accumulating on the genetic programme that drives GnRH neuron development to ameliorate the diagnosis and treatment of GnRH deficiency and consequent delayed or absent puberty. Moreover, a better understanding of the mechanisms controlling the episodic release of GnRH during the onset of puberty and the ovulatory cycle has enabled the pharmacological use of GnRH itself or its synthetic analogues (agonists and antagonists) to either stimulate or to block the gonadotrophin secretion and modulate the functions of the reproductive axis in several reproductive diseases and in assisted reproduction technology. Several inputs from other neuronal populations, as well as metabolic, somatic and age-related signals, may greatly affect the functions of the GnRH pulse generator during the female lifespan; their modulation may offer new possible strategies for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. A GnRH/GnRHR system is also expressed in female reproductive tissues (e.g. endometrium and ovary), both in normal and pathological conditions. The expression of this system in the human endometrium and ovary supports its physiological regulatory role in the processes of trophoblast invasion of the maternal endometrium and embryo implantation as well as of follicular development and corpus luteum functions. The GnRH/GnRHR system that is expressed in diseased tissues of the female reproductive tract (both benign and malignant) is at present considered an effective molecular target for the development of novel therapeutic approaches for these pathologies. GnRH agonists are also considered as a promising therapeutic approach to counteract ovarian failure in young female patients undergoing chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing knowledge about the regulation of GnRH pulsatile release, as well as the therapeutic use of its analogues, offers interesting new perspectives in the diagnosis, treatment and outcome of female reproductive disorders, including tumoral and iatrogenic diseases.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles

BACKGROUND

Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques(ART), progesterone and/or hCG levels are low, so the luteal phase is supported with progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to improve implantation and pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support provided to subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers. We conducted searches in November 2014, and further searches on 4 August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of luteal phase support using progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in ART cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison and combined data when appropriate using a fixed-effect model. Our primary out come was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-four women RCTs (26,198 women) were included. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. The main limitations in the evidence were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to small sample sizes.1. hCG vs placebo/no treatment (five RCTs, 746 women)There was no evidence of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.12, three RCTs,527 women, I2 = 24%, very low-quality evidence, but I2 of 61% was found for the subgroup of ongoing pregnancy) with a random effects model. hCG increased the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (1 RCT, OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.91 to 9.6, low quality evidence).2. Progesterone vs placebo/no treatment (eight RCTs, 875 women)Evidence suggests a higher rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.86, five RCTs, 642 women, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence). OHSS was not reported.3. Progesterone vs hCG regimens (16 RCTs, 2162 women)hCG regimens included comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. No evidence showed differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.38, five RCTs, 833 women, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence) or in the risk of OHSS (four RCTs, 615 women, progesterone vs hCG OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.34; four RCTs,678 women; progesterone vs progesterone plus hCG, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26, low-quality evidence).4. Progesterone vs progesterone with oestrogen (16 RCTs, 2577 women)No evidence was found of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.38, nine RCTs,1651 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or OHSS (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.63, two RCTs, 461 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).5. Progesterone vs progesterone + GnRH agonist (seven RCTs, 1708 women)Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates were lower in the progesterone-only group and increased in women who received progester one and one or more GnRH agonist doses (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81, nine RCTs, 2861 women, I2 = 55%, random effects, low quality evidence). Statistical heterogeneity for this comparison was high because of unexplained variation in the effect size, but the direction of effect was consistent across studies. OHSS was reported in one study only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.01, 1 RCT, 300 women, very low quality evidence).6. Progesterone regimens (45 RCTs, 13,814 women)The included studies reported nine different comparisons between progesterone regimens. Findings for live birth or ongoing pregnancy were as follows: intramuscular (IM) versus oral: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.66 (one RCT, 40 women, very low-quality evidence);IM versus vaginal/rectal: OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.5 (seven RCTs, 2309 women, I2 = 71%, very low-quality evidence); vaginal/rectal versus oral: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.69 (four RCTs, 857 women, I2 = 32%, low-quality evidence); low-dose versus high-dose vaginal: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11 (five RCTs, 3720 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence); short versus long protocol:OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36 (five RCTs, 1205 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); micronised versus synthetic: OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.55 (two RCTs, 470 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal ring versus gel: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36 (oneRCT, 1271 women, low-quality evidence); subcutaneous versus vaginal gel: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14 (two RCTs, 1465 women,I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); and vaginal versus rectal: OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.54 (one RCT, 147 women, very low-quality evidence). OHSS rates were reported for only two of these comparisons: IM versus oral, and low versus high-dose vaginal. No evidence showed a difference between groups.7. Progesterone and oestrogen regimens (two RCTs, 1195 women)The included studies compared two different oestrogen protocols. No evidence was found to suggest differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates between a short and a long protocol (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, one RCT, 910 women, low-quality evidence) or between a low dose and a high dose of oestrogen (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.13, one RCT, 285 women, very low-quality evidence).Neither study reported OHSS.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both progesterone and hCG during the luteal phase are associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than placebo.The addition of GnRHa to progesterone is associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes. OHSS rates are increased with hCG compared to placebo (only study only). The addition of oestrogen does not seem to improve outcomes. The route of progester one administration is not associated with an improvement in outcomes.